5 ms·

> Svalbard’s geopolitics provide an imperfect but alternative vision of how places can be governed, whom they can accommodate, and how communities can form. Ha

> Svalbard’s geopolitics provide an imperfect but alternative vision of how places can be governed, whom they can accommodate, and how communities can form. Hardly. It's a rugged community of 2300 people. That's not a model for alternative government. > "This is not a cradle to grave society,” one of Askholt’s colleagues told me.

dev_dull 7y ago
Not only that but it provides no social services, so there’s no government cost or burden to immigration. Similar to how the US was in its early history but contrast to how the US and Europe is now.
- diminoten 7y ago
  It is a myth that immigration creates a burden on the US government. I'm so sick of "two side"ism taking over every conversation. There is an opinion on this based in the weighing of all relevant facts, and there is an opinion about this based on the creative selection of only some facts. Decide for yourself, but what I've seen is that the full body of facts is much more supportive of the idea that immigrants are a net positive to the US than it is the opposite. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigrants-drain-government-resources/571582/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigr... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-ab... https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-drain-on-us-resources https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-d... https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-immigrants-fact-check https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-imm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigrants-are-not-the-fiscal-burden-native-born-americans-are https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigr... https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-contributors-immigrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/ https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-... https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-immigrants-and-why-theyre-mostly-wrong-a808952839c6 https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-...
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    Of course it has a cost. Everything has a cost. Maybe you meant the net benefit of immigration is greater than the initial cost burden in the long term? I agree with that. Or do you really believe that tripling the amount of software engineers in the Bay Area wouldn’t have any negative consequences? That’s the fallacy of an open border. At the very least we moderate and control immigration to mitigate short term costs and maximize long term benefit. And also for basic precautions, such as criminal history checks and vaccinations.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      It's not relevant to talk about the cost of something without also talking about over what period of time, and the myth that immigrants are a net negative to the US is completely ungrounded. Further, the notion that something must not have any negative consequences to be a net positive is an insane one, and not how any rational thinker applies themselves to a problem. There is no fallacy of an open border, and the short term costs are lower with immigrants than they are with native born Americans (see the myriad of articles I linked if you don't believe me). Lower short term costs, similar-to-better long term benefits (again, a well supported idea), it is a no brainer; immigrants are a better investment for Americans to make than on themselves! Now obviously it's silly to say, "Kick out Americans, let immigrants take their place" but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out. The reason immigrants are of benefit is because of the very borders you seek to remove. We apply a high barrier to entry which means we get more wheat and less chaff. Even if it was true that both legal and illegal immigrants are of advantage to "the economy," that argument acts as if the economy is the end-all-be-all of the nation-state. If allowing in cheaper immigrant labor allows for someone to get cheaper services at the expense of our lower runs of society through higher competition and lower wages, that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
> this is not a cradle to grave society Specifically: if you are pregnant approaching 7-8 months, if you become seriously ill, or if you are old enough to need care, you are flown off to the mainland. You're literally not allowed to be born or die there.
- incompatible 7y ago
  I'm curious about how that works for people with no visa or right to residence or healthcare in Norway.
  - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
    They will probably never get there in the first place - there's actually passport control at the airport before you leave the mainland.
    - incompatible 7y ago
      You could get there with a tourist visa and stay? After the visa has expired, I guess they'd let you back into Norway mainland before potentially kicking you out again, perhaps with a large medical bill. Edit: The article mentions for example "significant Thai and Filipino population"; I assume not all would have a right of residence in Norway.
padolsey 7y ago
> a rugged community of 2300 people I wouldn't characterize it like this. Longyearbyen has schools, churches, a post office, a local elected government. Kids play hockey near the streets over summer. Adults open museums, galleries and cafes for tourists. They've incredibly high speed broadband, amazing plumbing infrastructure too. It's an emotionally tough place to live over winter for some people, with the darkness, but it's not some Arctic campsite where only the rugged and tough can survive. And if you get ill you can easily go to the local hospital, with the possibility of a transfer to Tromso if it's bad.
scottlocklin 7y ago
>>> Svalbard’s geopolitics provide an imperfect but alternative vision of how places can be governed, whom they can accommodate, and how communities can form. Yeah, how you can govern an "open border" society made up of rich, educated people with abundant resources who intend to go back to their home country after a little while. You wouldn't need borders if it was as hard to get to NYC as it is to Svalbard.

dev_dull 7y ago

Not only that but it provides no social services, so there’s no government cost or burden to immigration. Similar to how the US was in its early history but contrast to how the US and Europe is now.

diminoten 7y ago
It is a myth that immigration creates a burden on the US government. I'm so sick of "two side"ism taking over every conversation. There is an opinion on this based in the weighing of all relevant facts, and there is an opinion about this based on the creative selection of only some facts. Decide for yourself, but what I've seen is that the full body of facts is much more supportive of the idea that immigrants are a net positive to the US than it is the opposite. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigrants-drain-government-resources/571582/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigr... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-ab... https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-drain-on-us-resources https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-d... https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-immigrants-fact-check https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-imm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigrants-are-not-the-fiscal-burden-native-born-americans-are https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigr... https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-contributors-immigrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/ https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-... https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-immigrants-and-why-theyre-mostly-wrong-a808952839c6 https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-...
- dev_dull 7y ago
  Of course it has a cost. Everything has a cost. Maybe you meant the net benefit of immigration is greater than the initial cost burden in the long term? I agree with that. Or do you really believe that tripling the amount of software engineers in the Bay Area wouldn’t have any negative consequences? That’s the fallacy of an open border. At the very least we moderate and control immigration to mitigate short term costs and maximize long term benefit. And also for basic precautions, such as criminal history checks and vaccinations.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    It's not relevant to talk about the cost of something without also talking about over what period of time, and the myth that immigrants are a net negative to the US is completely ungrounded. Further, the notion that something must not have any negative consequences to be a net positive is an insane one, and not how any rational thinker applies themselves to a problem. There is no fallacy of an open border, and the short term costs are lower with immigrants than they are with native born Americans (see the myriad of articles I linked if you don't believe me). Lower short term costs, similar-to-better long term benefits (again, a well supported idea), it is a no brainer; immigrants are a better investment for Americans to make than on themselves! Now obviously it's silly to say, "Kick out Americans, let immigrants take their place" but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out. The reason immigrants are of benefit is because of the very borders you seek to remove. We apply a high barrier to entry which means we get more wheat and less chaff. Even if it was true that both legal and illegal immigrants are of advantage to "the economy," that argument acts as if the economy is the end-all-be-all of the nation-state. If allowing in cheaper immigrant labor allows for someone to get cheaper services at the expense of our lower runs of society through higher competition and lower wages, that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

> this is not a cradle to grave society Specifically: if you are pregnant approaching 7-8 months, if you become seriously ill, or if you are old enough to need care, you are flown off to the mainland. You're literally not allowed to be born or die there.

incompatible 7y ago
I'm curious about how that works for people with no visa or right to residence or healthcare in Norway.
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  They will probably never get there in the first place - there's actually passport control at the airport before you leave the mainland.
  - incompatible 7y ago
    You could get there with a tourist visa and stay? After the visa has expired, I guess they'd let you back into Norway mainland before potentially kicking you out again, perhaps with a large medical bill. Edit: The article mentions for example "significant Thai and Filipino population"; I assume not all would have a right of residence in Norway.

padolsey 7y ago

> a rugged community of 2300 people I wouldn't characterize it like this. Longyearbyen has schools, churches, a post office, a local elected government. Kids play hockey near the streets over summer. Adults open museums, galleries and cafes for tourists. They've incredibly high speed broadband, amazing plumbing infrastructure too. It's an emotionally tough place to live over winter for some people, with the darkness, but it's not some Arctic campsite where only the rugged and tough can survive. And if you get ill you can easily go to the local hospital, with the possibility of a transfer to Tromso if it's bad.

scottlocklin 7y ago

>>> Svalbard’s geopolitics provide an imperfect but alternative vision of how places can be governed, whom they can accommodate, and how communities can form. Yeah, how you can govern an "open border" society made up of rich, educated people with abundant resources who intend to go back to their home country after a little while. You wouldn't need borders if it was as hard to get to NYC as it is to Svalbard.