4 ms·

> Free migration is the most effective way to reduce world poverty. Temporarily, yes, and it often comes with the burden of providing for the migrant for the r

> Free migration is the most effective way to reduce world poverty. Temporarily, yes, and it often comes with the burden of providing for the migrant for the rest of their life. the most effective way to end poverty long-term is to create conditions in which populations of impoverished nations fix their own problems on their own soil "over there".

MichaelGG 9y ago
Exactly. The US basically had a huge forced immigration scheme a couple hundred years ago. Their descendants are still having a hard time in the US and it continues to be a huge issue for everyone involved, as recent protests show. Somehow, an even larger migration setup is going to work out smoothly? Not to mention, if everyone could elect to move wherever they wanted: what % of the world's population would overwhelmingly choose West EU/US/Canada? Even without the "burden of providing": Drive around Toronto and outlying areas and see, that even with Canada's still restrictive immigration policy, even across economic status, the idea that everything mixes into one cohesive society is laughably false.
- megous 9y ago
  Forced vs voluntary migration is quite an important distinction. Argument is for removing barriers, not for forcing people to go somewhere.
- sjg007 9y ago
  Forced including slavery, racism and every legal maneuver possible to further suppress economic and social development. Not unlike what we do to illegal immigrants today.
jeffbax 9y ago
Bringing people out of low-productivity environments is good for everyone, even though there may be some transition struggles (probably the number one concern for people who favor restricting immigration). It is also most likely the thing that will fix "over there" because it will force change in places losing talent, as well as educate a bunch of people, many of whom will likely want to go fix their low-productivity hometowns and countries. Charter cities are another option, but the argument that "we need to fix over there so don't let people move" is just perpetuating the status quo more than anything.

MichaelGG 9y ago

Exactly. The US basically had a huge forced immigration scheme a couple hundred years ago. Their descendants are still having a hard time in the US and it continues to be a huge issue for everyone involved, as recent protests show. Somehow, an even larger migration setup is going to work out smoothly? Not to mention, if everyone could elect to move wherever they wanted: what % of the world's population would overwhelmingly choose West EU/US/Canada? Even without the "burden of providing": Drive around Toronto and outlying areas and see, that even with Canada's still restrictive immigration policy, even across economic status, the idea that everything mixes into one cohesive society is laughably false.

megous 9y ago
Forced vs voluntary migration is quite an important distinction. Argument is for removing barriers, not for forcing people to go somewhere.
sjg007 9y ago
Forced including slavery, racism and every legal maneuver possible to further suppress economic and social development. Not unlike what we do to illegal immigrants today.

jeffbax 9y ago

Bringing people out of low-productivity environments is good for everyone, even though there may be some transition struggles (probably the number one concern for people who favor restricting immigration). It is also most likely the thing that will fix "over there" because it will force change in places losing talent, as well as educate a bunch of people, many of whom will likely want to go fix their low-productivity hometowns and countries. Charter cities are another option, but the argument that "we need to fix over there so don't let people move" is just perpetuating the status quo more than anything.