3 ms·

Singapore's government is widely acknowledged to have one of the best track records in the world, when it comes to considering and then successfully implementin

Singapore's government is widely acknowledged to have one of the best track records in the world, when it comes to considering and then successfully implementing unpopular policies that nevertheless economically benefit the group. And immigration policy is one area they considered with fresh eyes; even the most radical open borders advocates were permitted to, and did, try to make their case in Singapore. What did they conclude the facts actually were? What is their immigration policy today? If one of you two is ignoring the facts, there's practically no question that it's you.

diminoten 7y ago
I'm confused, are you talking about this, a paper published in 2013 by the government of Singapore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_White_Paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_White_Paper That research you're talking about (with fresh eyes) concluded they needed more immigrants, not fewer. I just don't understand what point you're trying to make. Singapore's immigration laws are in what way relevant to the US? It's an "island city state" according to Wikipedia, not really at all comparable, but if one wanted to make a comparison, the government of Singapore suggested opening its own borders further, which supports what I was saying. Did you think I was advocating for a more closed border?
- chrchang523 7y ago
  Singapore treats high-skill and low-skill immigrants quite differently. That's the centerpiece of their policy, and entirely relevant to the West. Compare Canada/Australia/NZ's race-blind (and high-volume, especially relative to their population sizes!) but points-based immigration systems, and much lower severity of populist revolt in those countries, with the problems in the US and European countries that had been executing less selective policies against the wishes of their citizens.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    Against the wishes of their citizens? Since when? Also, how is any of that relevant to a country that has so much more space and resources for people? The US is geographically and economically gigantic compared to Singapore, proportionally we can take on orders of magnitude more people than Singapore, so why would we try to apply the same policy? At 35 people per km^2 vs 8,100 per km^2, how on Earth could you possibly try to compare?
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      > so why would we try to apply the same policy? To make the country as nice a place to live as possible. Here is a concrete example. Look at the outmigration of California -- if there had been way less immigration, more people (that aren't descended from recent immigrants) would get to enjoy living in California, but instead it's too expensive and polluted, houses are really packed in together. Imagine how much nicer a place to live California would be if we had only admitted immigrants that can solve basic math problems.
      - diminoten 7y ago
        California is not too expensive and polluted due to immigration, it's too expensive and polluted due to Americans. It's also neither polluted nor expensive, when you consider the entire state. Some of the most barren places in the US are in California, as are some very poor areas. It's a big state, which is my whole point, the US is huge. But I get it, you want nice things and you don't want others to have them. Too bad.
        chrchang523 7y ago
        The US has a far better track record than any other leading power in history when it comes to facilitating the development of other countries into nice places. See e.g. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-americans-spent-themselves-into.html http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-americans-spent-th... , or consider the motivation behind the Optional Practical Training student visa provision. As a US citizen, I personally spent three years working in China for a Chinese company, on salaries in line with those of local PhD staff, and nobody lifted a finger to stop me from developing cutting-edge technology for them; this may be slightly more restricted today in the specific case of China, but a younger analogue of me interested in applying what they learned from US grad school to problems in India/Indonesia/etc. faces few barriers from the US side, beyond unusual income tax and other financial considerations that only really kick in if you're already making enough to live like a king. Yes, I want nice things. And I want as many other people as possible to have them as well, which is why I'll remain opposed to US-weakening policies until we have a #2 power that's even better at helping foreigners than the US.

diminoten 7y ago

I'm confused, are you talking about this, a paper published in 2013 by the government of Singapore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_White_Paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_White_Paper That research you're talking about (with fresh eyes) concluded they needed more immigrants, not fewer. I just don't understand what point you're trying to make. Singapore's immigration laws are in what way relevant to the US? It's an "island city state" according to Wikipedia, not really at all comparable, but if one wanted to make a comparison, the government of Singapore suggested opening its own borders further, which supports what I was saying. Did you think I was advocating for a more closed border?

chrchang523 7y ago
Singapore treats high-skill and low-skill immigrants quite differently. That's the centerpiece of their policy, and entirely relevant to the West. Compare Canada/Australia/NZ's race-blind (and high-volume, especially relative to their population sizes!) but points-based immigration systems, and much lower severity of populist revolt in those countries, with the problems in the US and European countries that had been executing less selective policies against the wishes of their citizens.
- diminoten 7y ago
  Against the wishes of their citizens? Since when? Also, how is any of that relevant to a country that has so much more space and resources for people? The US is geographically and economically gigantic compared to Singapore, proportionally we can take on orders of magnitude more people than Singapore, so why would we try to apply the same policy? At 35 people per km^2 vs 8,100 per km^2, how on Earth could you possibly try to compare?
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    > so why would we try to apply the same policy? To make the country as nice a place to live as possible. Here is a concrete example. Look at the outmigration of California -- if there had been way less immigration, more people (that aren't descended from recent immigrants) would get to enjoy living in California, but instead it's too expensive and polluted, houses are really packed in together. Imagine how much nicer a place to live California would be if we had only admitted immigrants that can solve basic math problems.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      California is not too expensive and polluted due to immigration, it's too expensive and polluted due to Americans. It's also neither polluted nor expensive, when you consider the entire state. Some of the most barren places in the US are in California, as are some very poor areas. It's a big state, which is my whole point, the US is huge. But I get it, you want nice things and you don't want others to have them. Too bad.
      - chrchang523 7y ago
        The US has a far better track record than any other leading power in history when it comes to facilitating the development of other countries into nice places. See e.g. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-americans-spent-themselves-into.html http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-americans-spent-th... , or consider the motivation behind the Optional Practical Training student visa provision. As a US citizen, I personally spent three years working in China for a Chinese company, on salaries in line with those of local PhD staff, and nobody lifted a finger to stop me from developing cutting-edge technology for them; this may be slightly more restricted today in the specific case of China, but a younger analogue of me interested in applying what they learned from US grad school to problems in India/Indonesia/etc. faces few barriers from the US side, beyond unusual income tax and other financial considerations that only really kick in if you're already making enough to live like a king. Yes, I want nice things. And I want as many other people as possible to have them as well, which is why I'll remain opposed to US-weakening policies until we have a #2 power that's even better at helping foreigners than the US.