6 ms·

Ask HN: Is it morally acceptable for a country to not want immigration?

• elamje 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201
• neilwilson 8y ago
  It's always important to remember that one area's skilled immigration is another area's brain drain. The moral issue is whether it is ok to take skilled people that have been trained using the limited resources of poorer areas of the world without supplying an equally skilled person in return. Consider it within a country. The cities take the skills from the rural areas. What does that do to the rural areas? It is no different between countries. Fiscal transfer payments don't correct the problem. A pile of dollars will not treat your sick grandmother. You need a doctor in the local area. If they have been poached by a richer country, then you're in trouble. And no country on earth has a surplus of medical staff, and not everybody can realistically become a doctor. The framing with immigration is always down to the choice of the individual, and never really takes into account the desires of the community the individual has moved into, nor the desires of the community the individual has moved from - particularly if the source area has expended effort training the individual. What do you owe beyond money to the people that helped you be who you are? As with companies if the drain continues, then nobody bothers training anybody - or doing the training - and we all eat our seed corn. There's no simple answer, but net zero migration seems the best prospect to satisfy all sides - for somebody to move in, somebody else has to move out. A swap of equals. After all fair exchange is no robbery.
  • elamje 8y ago
    That is a perspective I haven't heard, and one that could help a lot of people on both sides better understand immigration. In a world with hundreds of autonomous countries, it's hard to envision that becoming a reality unless countries set up immigration partnerships. It definitely is unfortunate for regions where there isn't much opportunity, since the current system typically allows your citizens to just leave and go to the highest bidder, unless the government restricts emigration.
  • dpeck 8y ago
    > The framing with immigration is always down to the choice of the individual Because it should be.
  • gusmd 8y ago
    > The moral issue is whether it is ok to take skilled people that have been trained using the limited resources of poorer areas of the world without supplying an equally skilled person in return. The skilled people that have been trained using the limited resources of poorer areas have literally funded those limited resources through their taxes or by directly paying for their education (private schools are a thing everywhere, even in poor countries -- 1st-hand experience here). Nobody has a moral obligation to stay in their home country when a much better quality of life is achievable elsewhere. The origin nation does not need to be to "satisfied". Humans should be free agents to defend their best interests and seek a better outcome for themselves and their families, wherever that may be (as long as the destination accepts them!).
    • thedevindevops 8y ago
      > Nobody has a moral obligation to stay in their home country when a much better quality of life is achievable elsewhere. When using that model, is there any mechanism for the quality of life in their home country to ever improve?
      • gusmd 8y ago
        I would like to believe so. But maybe there isn't, or his leaving makes it worse. My point, though, is that that burden shouldn't fall on the single individual, for his power to promote actual change is negligible. More anecdotally, I know in my home country it was a lost fight, as even among close friends and family, I found it hard to find a reflection of my own values. How could I hope to influence the other 200+ million people?
• adolph 8y ago
  The sample arguments for/against seem to have a lot to do with the cost/benefit instead of morals. Is one really guided by morals if one's morals are guided by relatively short-term cost/benefit and not by some elaboration of a universal truth?
  • dragonwriter 8y ago
    Utilitarianism is a perfectly valid moral framework; one might prefer a different one, of course.
• throwawaystale 8y ago
  It's arguably unethical. It's also arguably unethical for you not to host a number of poor people in your house or apartment. And more fundamentally, it's arguably unethical for your not to spend most of your money trying to support the world's poorest. Few people manage much in this regard, but that's our situation. For a detailed explanation, start here: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer-solution-to-world-poverty.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer-solut...
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • sloaken 8y ago
    Thank you for posting that. It was a great read, good logic, I would argue some points, but basically very good points.
  • sente 8y ago
    Thank you for linking the NYTimes article.
• dontbenebby 8y ago
  Aren't there UN treaties on things like asylum? IIRC you can't just do a popular vote to stop following a treaty.
  • BjoernKW 8y ago
    Yes, but asylum and immigration are two different matters. They often get mixed up and as far as the individual is concerned one eventually might lead to the other but a country could very well opt against immigration while still granting asylum according to UN treaties.
  • sloaken 8y ago
    Yes Asylum is where you go the the first available country to get away from the problem. Not go shopping for the best opportunity. Most, not all migrants, compete with the lower class. This keeps the lower class wages down, and enriches the rich. There is a tired old argument 'we need immigrants, because the locals will not do the job'. Which is total BS. They will not do it for the cheap ass pay you are offering. Pay me enough I will clean sewers with a toothbrush.
• superflit 8y ago
  I will speak as an Immigrant with double citizenship and minority. When I decided to immigrate to Country "A" Is because I value country "A" values and laws AND I want that continue like that. If I decided to go to X place I do expect somethings. So I want my country "A" to retain its laws, values, and traditions. So what I do? 1. Enforce language learning on my kids and parents; 2. Understand local history; 3. Understand that some popular customs may be different, but it is way are here; 4. Don't break the law and try to be most compliant possible (hire CPA, check with a lawyer). 5. Work and work. I don't have an immediate family, so I have to work for "now" and my future to dr; try to be a nice guest Now why I left my country "Z." 1. High Corruption and Violence; 2. My personal view clashed with original local culture; 3. Not enough opportunities and life were too hard (3 jobs, high taxes, and bad conditions). 4. All my education had to be paid privately and health too so NO I am not "robbing" resources. Tl dr; I am sorry country "Z" we are not compatible; Now, Do I think country "A" HAS to allow me in? No. Country A is doing me a favor. My grandfather never fought for country A, or neither has any parent mine done anything for country A. I see myself as a guest, and I will try to be a nice guest. Not sure we will get along but while I am a guest I follow Host laws and culture. Do I think I OWN anything to my original country? No! Indeed I think I should earn money back as my taxes, social security is there, and I will not be able to collect back and never I studied on Public school or used public health system. What do I think about other people like me that aren't a good guest? The ones that break law? Marry to get a visa? Steal? I do think they make my life and others harder. And they are ungrateful. What do I think about diversity? I don't want it. I want my son to be the "diversity" because if country "A" is good for me is because of its original and majority people and I want to keep the demographics in favor of that. TL DR; There are no poor country only corrupt ones. Have the right culture and mindset and favor it. Is it fair? Life is not fair. The people born here they have so easy. Easy jobs, easy money, no accent they understand all culture, jokes, etc. But their parents make an effort or sacrifice as I hope to make to my kids and grand son. Maybe sometime in the future, they will call my grand son "privileged" ..
• dangerface 8y ago
  Countries generally consider themselves above morality, and act in accordance. I was born of the world with independent thought and share it with every one else born under the same circumstance. This is my believe of sovereignty and how most people act even if they are unaware of it. A nation at its very basic is the idea that some people have more claim to some part of the world. The idea of nations in and of itself is just an attack on individuals sovereignty which is unethical and immoral.
• zerr 8y ago
  It is unethical to restrict the movement of individuals based on the birth lottery. It is unethical to eliminate native inhabitants or force them to adopt your values.
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I want to know what you personally think about the morals of a country choosing to close the borders in any capacity, as long as it was democratically chosen. Being democratically chosen is utterly orthogonal to the morality of the policy, and only relates to the morality of the policy process. Also, you seem to be asking about different things and may be conflating them: “closing the borders” is different than “prohibiting immigration”. > Nation will suffer economically due to lack of trade This is an affect of closing borders, not prohibiting immigration. Stopping immigration has no direct effect on trade. > and/or talent OTOH, this is an impact of either closing borders or merely restricting immigration (or non-immigrant alien work, e.g., cutting off H-4 work permits as a means of making H-1B less attractive.) > Nation will have better chance at maintaining culture/language/tribe There is a difference between stagnation/decay and healthy maintenance, and forcible isolation leans more to the former than the latter. > It will bring back jobs Closing borders won't, it'll kill them in large numbers. So will stopping immigration, though in smaller numbers. OTOH, stopping immigration will also reduce the pool of people seeking jobs. Which may somewhat offset the hit to overall employment from the job loss. > and keep the nation safer. If you magically assume complete effectiveness, sure, in terms of external threats, but you might as well just assume complete effectiveness of a policy of only stopping dangerous items and people from crossing the border, which is more focussed but no less magical.