3 ms·

This is a very political article. All the predictions revolve around topical political subjects. From the current immigration issues in Europe to climate change

This is a very political article. All the predictions revolve around topical political subjects. From the current immigration issues in Europe to climate change. Climate change is definitely long term, but how many of the other issues will still be relevant decades from now? And his opinions on immigration are ridiculous. The first world has had very guarded borders for a long time. The trend is going in the opposite direction, with Europe becoming more sympathetic to immigrants and letting in tons of them. The author wants completely open borders, and declares this is even a civil right. Which is totally impractical and would have huge negative consequences. The author accuses anyone of being against this as being racist or right wing. He suggests some kind of conspiracy theory by rich people opposing it. As if rich people don't benefit from immigration with cheaper labor.

eru 11y ago
Compare http://openborders.info/ http://openborders.info/ Especially `Dont’ Restrict Immigration, Tax It' (http://openborders.info/driti/ http://openborders.info/driti/) is an interesting policy tool.
- tomp 11y ago
  Isn't the "Tier 1 Investor Visa" exactly that - a tax on immigration?
  - eru 11y ago
    Somewhat. It's not a very efficient form or implementation of that kind of tax.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  HN discussed that article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801173 I think this comment sums it up: > A humanitarian could only say "These people are beneficial!" than he would immediately realize, "And Guatemala needs them more than us. Send them back." That has never happened. An open border would result in a rapid and massive wave of immigrants, who would completely destroy the culture, politics, and economy of the home country. An immigration tax could prevent that, but then it's not an open border. If the fee is high enough, poor immigrants and refugees would be left out. Otherwise it sounds like a much simpler and fair system than the current bureaucratic mess.
  - eru 11y ago
    And https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801578 had the proper response: "Faulty logic. One of the biggest reasons for supporting liberalized immigration is that it lets people move to the areas where they are most productive. People in Guatemala become massively more productive when they move to the USA, which earns them higher wages and makes them better off (along with others who benefit from more production)." Thanks for the pointer to the previous discussion.
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country, which it obviously doesn't. The immigrants would of course benefit economically, no one ever disputed that. But at the expense of the native population. Good luck earning a living wage when you are competing against the whole third world's population of laborers. That's not even covering the immigrants using social services. You can't have any social programs at all, or every sick person who needs free health care can just move to your country. Or welfare benefits or whatever. Those programs can't work if the entire world's population can show up and take them.
      - eru 11y ago
        Have you read anything on the linked site? They address _all_ your points. See especially http://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ http://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ > The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country [...] That's not at all clear. Also, we should probably look at benefits to persons (or humanity in general?) instead of countries. The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country, which it obviously doesn't. > The immigrants would of course benefit economically, no one ever disputed that. But at the expense of the native population. Good luck earning a living wage when you are competing against the whole third world's population of laborers. Actually, it's not at the expense of the native population. (Studies have shown that. The open borders people have the links.) In any case any negative impact could be compensated with taxes and redistribution. Also, with free trade you already compete with the whole world in some sense. > That's not even covering the immigrants using social services. You can't have any social programs at all, or every sick person who needs free health care can just move to your country. Or welfare benefits or whatever. Those programs can't work if the entire world's population can show up and take them. Just restrict those specific uses. They cover that, too, on the website. See http://openborders.info/welfare-objection/ http://openborders.info/welfare-objection/
tomp 11y ago
Exactly. The only reason we even have "developed" nations is that "development" is concentrated, i.e. unevenly distributed. If everyone just migrated into EU and US, those regions wouldn't be that "developed" any more.

eru 11y ago

Compare http://openborders.info/ http://openborders.info/ Especially `Dont’ Restrict Immigration, Tax It' (http://openborders.info/driti/ http://openborders.info/driti/) is an interesting policy tool.

tomp 11y ago
Isn't the "Tier 1 Investor Visa" exactly that - a tax on immigration?
- eru 11y ago
  Somewhat. It's not a very efficient form or implementation of that kind of tax.
Houshalter 11y ago
HN discussed that article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801173 I think this comment sums it up: > A humanitarian could only say "These people are beneficial!" than he would immediately realize, "And Guatemala needs them more than us. Send them back." That has never happened. An open border would result in a rapid and massive wave of immigrants, who would completely destroy the culture, politics, and economy of the home country. An immigration tax could prevent that, but then it's not an open border. If the fee is high enough, poor immigrants and refugees would be left out. Otherwise it sounds like a much simpler and fair system than the current bureaucratic mess.
- eru 11y ago
  And https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801578 had the proper response: "Faulty logic. One of the biggest reasons for supporting liberalized immigration is that it lets people move to the areas where they are most productive. People in Guatemala become massively more productive when they move to the USA, which earns them higher wages and makes them better off (along with others who benefit from more production)." Thanks for the pointer to the previous discussion.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country, which it obviously doesn't. The immigrants would of course benefit economically, no one ever disputed that. But at the expense of the native population. Good luck earning a living wage when you are competing against the whole third world's population of laborers. That's not even covering the immigrants using social services. You can't have any social programs at all, or every sick person who needs free health care can just move to your country. Or welfare benefits or whatever. Those programs can't work if the entire world's population can show up and take them.
    - eru 11y ago
      Have you read anything on the linked site? They address _all_ your points. See especially http://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ http://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/ > The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country [...] That's not at all clear. Also, we should probably look at benefits to persons (or humanity in general?) instead of countries. The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country, which it obviously doesn't. > The immigrants would of course benefit economically, no one ever disputed that. But at the expense of the native population. Good luck earning a living wage when you are competing against the whole third world's population of laborers. Actually, it's not at the expense of the native population. (Studies have shown that. The open borders people have the links.) In any case any negative impact could be compensated with taxes and redistribution. Also, with free trade you already compete with the whole world in some sense. > That's not even covering the immigrants using social services. You can't have any social programs at all, or every sick person who needs free health care can just move to your country. Or welfare benefits or whatever. Those programs can't work if the entire world's population can show up and take them. Just restrict those specific uses. They cover that, too, on the website. See http://openborders.info/welfare-objection/ http://openborders.info/welfare-objection/

tomp 11y ago

Exactly. The only reason we even have "developed" nations is that "development" is concentrated, i.e. unevenly distributed. If everyone just migrated into EU and US, those regions wouldn't be that "developed" any more.