3 ms·

I'm concerned about opening up the borders before we understand why some countries are corrupt and others aren't. In a place like the US, trying to bribe a poli

I'm concerned about opening up the borders before we understand why some countries are corrupt and others aren't. In a place like the US, trying to bribe a police officer is unexpected, and everyone who gets involved in the situation ends up working to punish those involved in the bribery. In a place like Venezuela, bribing a police officer is expected, and everyone who gets involved in the situation ends up getting paid or threatened into supporting the status quo. Corruption isn't the only cultural artifact that's under threat, but if we understand what's going on well enough, I'd be much more confident that opening the borders won't cause existential threat to what makes the host nations great.

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
That's a really interesting point. As an immigrant myself, I'd say that one of the objections to immigration (generally-speaking) which I find has the most sway is something along the lines that you have mentioned. I genuinely believe that some of the "negative" things countries experience are directly related to certain cultural norms/values that many of their citizens may share, and that by moving to a different country, some of those values could also be embedded in the receiving country and similarly "pollute" it. But I think that the answer to that is MORE immigration, not less. By restricting immigration, we're introducing small pebbles into the gears which allow people to find the best opportunities for themselves and their families. I think is it precisely those issues which allow public policies and cultural norms to distort so much. With MORE immigration, I think competition would very quickly weed out norms and practices which are inconsistent with a healthy and productive society. I think a story like Chavez's and Maduro's would be a lot more difficult to come by in a society where their citizens could not be forced to live under their regime.
- RestlessMind 10y ago
  More immigration will certainly help the countries like Venezuela, whose citizens can simply escape to better places. But at the same time, it will be bad for the host countries whose social safety nets will be strained and whose citizens will now have to put up with masses with vastly different values. And the interaction will not always be pleasant (eg. Cologne incident in Germany earlier this year). So my question to you is - why do you think its a better solution to improve condition of some societies at the expense of some other societies?

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago

That's a really interesting point. As an immigrant myself, I'd say that one of the objections to immigration (generally-speaking) which I find has the most sway is something along the lines that you have mentioned. I genuinely believe that some of the "negative" things countries experience are directly related to certain cultural norms/values that many of their citizens may share, and that by moving to a different country, some of those values could also be embedded in the receiving country and similarly "pollute" it. But I think that the answer to that is MORE immigration, not less. By restricting immigration, we're introducing small pebbles into the gears which allow people to find the best opportunities for themselves and their families. I think is it precisely those issues which allow public policies and cultural norms to distort so much. With MORE immigration, I think competition would very quickly weed out norms and practices which are inconsistent with a healthy and productive society. I think a story like Chavez's and Maduro's would be a lot more difficult to come by in a society where their citizens could not be forced to live under their regime.

RestlessMind 10y ago
More immigration will certainly help the countries like Venezuela, whose citizens can simply escape to better places. But at the same time, it will be bad for the host countries whose social safety nets will be strained and whose citizens will now have to put up with masses with vastly different values. And the interaction will not always be pleasant (eg. Cologne incident in Germany earlier this year). So my question to you is - why do you think its a better solution to improve condition of some societies at the expense of some other societies?