4 ms·

> it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously The economic argument for free migration is identical to the one for free trade[1]. Do you find it hard to

> it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously The economic argument for free migration is identical to the one for free trade[1]. Do you find it hard to take free trade advocates seriously? [1]https://contexts.org/articles/the-economics-of-migration/ https://contexts.org/articles/the-economics-of-migration/

Strom 7y ago
If free trade ends up being bad for a country, it's much easier to change that compared to deporting some insane amount of people. Especially when the migrant home country can't even be determined. Having a constant flow of immigrants is fine, however I think it's important to monitor how it affects the vitals of the country and not crash its welfare system etc.
lliamander 7y ago
The risks of immigration (of any sort) include: - spread of disease - erosion of social trust due to conflicting cultures - erosion of other social capital if immigrant culture has a higher time preference than native culture - identity politics (people vote along ethnic rather than ideological lines) Now, there are certainly benefits to immigration as well, but they must be put in balance. I agree that trade and immigration have many parallels, but there is still a difference between an economic transaction at arms-distance vs. inviting someone into your home.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Is this like when the British settlers deliberately used smallpox-infected blankets to give diseases to the native Americans? Trying to associate immigration with disease is some vile rhetoric.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    >>>Trying to associate immigration with disease is some vile rhetoric. Cross-border population movements are a potential vector for disease transmission. Just look at the Google Scholar results from some similar searches, especially [1] and [2]. Casting objective physical science concerns as some sort of subjective expression of xenophobia is unhelpful to mitigating or solving real problems. [1]https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2000/00000004/00000004/art00002 https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2000/000... [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640853/
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      Yet no serious commentator advocates shutting down tourism out of concern for spread of disease, and it's long been found that the key to preventing infection outbreaks is to have a well-functioning medical system.
      - CapricornNoble 7y ago
        Probably because tourists move through very easily monitored access points. Not sure about the US, but most major airports in Asia have body-heat sensors to flag anyone who might be suffering from an infection-related fever. Similar controls should exist at all immigration points to the US. Implementing processes and technical systems to mitigate risk first requires acknowledging that the risk exists, and isn't just "vile rhetoric". Then we can reap the benefits of legal immigration while avoiding the negatives.
        tomhoward 7y ago
        I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia. It’s hard to imagine how much use it would be; an active fever is only one indicator of whether someone is carrying an infectious illness, so such a test will lead to many false positives and negatives. I'm fine with a sober discussion about the economic and moral pros/cons of immigration, and about fair and humane means of controlling immigration. But this line of argument seems like a red herring.
        CapricornNoble 7y ago
        >>>I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia. I guess they are easy to miss, they just look like camcorders on tripods, usually, but the checkpoints themselves and their purpose are usually clearly marked. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-27/a-thermal-camera-system-at-incheon-airport-south/1664426 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-27/a-thermal-camera-syst... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30523865/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/how-thermal-imaging-cameras-spot-flu-fevers/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30523865/ns/technology_and_science...
barry-cotter 7y ago
He didn’t make an economic argument, he made a social and political one about changes to culture. I support open borders for the same reason I support free trade but the idea that it would be anything but massively disruptive to most existing political settlements is a joke. The US fifty years after open borders would have a lot in common with before but the Roman Empire had a lot in common with the Republic too. No way a welfare state, democracy and open borders go together. Open borders isn’t going to be costless for existing residents.
- ndarwincorn 7y ago
  Borders are an authoritarian tool of control, so allusions to empire and talking about a democratic society with a safety net being unable to handle open borders is bizarre to say the least. The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless. True, if you don’t have the concept of community. If you do you value fellow members differently than non-members. From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though.
    - ndarwincorn 7y ago
      > If you do you value fellow members differently than non-members. This is where xenophobia comes from, nevermind the fact that however slice it (unless counting military action/colnialism as immigration, like you do) 'community members' are more likely to commit acts of violence on other community members than non-members. > From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though. This is a rich example to use given what you're arguing for. Colonizers weren't immigrants, they were colonizers. Blaming the original inhabitants' border control (in a world where borders were very different than the ones we have today) for colonialism, and conflating modern-day migration with colonization, is disgusting.

Strom 7y ago

If free trade ends up being bad for a country, it's much easier to change that compared to deporting some insane amount of people. Especially when the migrant home country can't even be determined. Having a constant flow of immigrants is fine, however I think it's important to monitor how it affects the vitals of the country and not crash its welfare system etc.

lliamander 7y ago

The risks of immigration (of any sort) include: - spread of disease - erosion of social trust due to conflicting cultures - erosion of other social capital if immigrant culture has a higher time preference than native culture - identity politics (people vote along ethnic rather than ideological lines) Now, there are certainly benefits to immigration as well, but they must be put in balance. I agree that trade and immigration have many parallels, but there is still a difference between an economic transaction at arms-distance vs. inviting someone into your home.

anigbrowl 7y ago
Is this like when the British settlers deliberately used smallpox-infected blankets to give diseases to the native Americans? Trying to associate immigration with disease is some vile rhetoric.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>>Trying to associate immigration with disease is some vile rhetoric. Cross-border population movements are a potential vector for disease transmission. Just look at the Google Scholar results from some similar searches, especially [1] and [2]. Casting objective physical science concerns as some sort of subjective expression of xenophobia is unhelpful to mitigating or solving real problems. [1]https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2000/00000004/00000004/art00002 https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2000/000... [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640853/
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    Yet no serious commentator advocates shutting down tourism out of concern for spread of disease, and it's long been found that the key to preventing infection outbreaks is to have a well-functioning medical system.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      Probably because tourists move through very easily monitored access points. Not sure about the US, but most major airports in Asia have body-heat sensors to flag anyone who might be suffering from an infection-related fever. Similar controls should exist at all immigration points to the US. Implementing processes and technical systems to mitigate risk first requires acknowledging that the risk exists, and isn't just "vile rhetoric". Then we can reap the benefits of legal immigration while avoiding the negatives.
      - tomhoward 7y ago
        I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia. It’s hard to imagine how much use it would be; an active fever is only one indicator of whether someone is carrying an infectious illness, so such a test will lead to many false positives and negatives. I'm fine with a sober discussion about the economic and moral pros/cons of immigration, and about fair and humane means of controlling immigration. But this line of argument seems like a red herring.
        CapricornNoble 7y ago
        >>>I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia. I guess they are easy to miss, they just look like camcorders on tripods, usually, but the checkpoints themselves and their purpose are usually clearly marked. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-27/a-thermal-camera-system-at-incheon-airport-south/1664426 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-27/a-thermal-camera-syst... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30523865/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/how-thermal-imaging-cameras-spot-flu-fevers/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30523865/ns/technology_and_science...

barry-cotter 7y ago

He didn’t make an economic argument, he made a social and political one about changes to culture. I support open borders for the same reason I support free trade but the idea that it would be anything but massively disruptive to most existing political settlements is a joke. The US fifty years after open borders would have a lot in common with before but the Roman Empire had a lot in common with the Republic too. No way a welfare state, democracy and open borders go together. Open borders isn’t going to be costless for existing residents.

ndarwincorn 7y ago
Borders are an authoritarian tool of control, so allusions to empire and talking about a democratic society with a safety net being unable to handle open borders is bizarre to say the least. The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless. True, if you don’t have the concept of community. If you do you value fellow members differently than non-members. From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though.
  - ndarwincorn 7y ago
    > If you do you value fellow members differently than non-members. This is where xenophobia comes from, nevermind the fact that however slice it (unless counting military action/colnialism as immigration, like you do) 'community members' are more likely to commit acts of violence on other community members than non-members. > From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though. This is a rich example to use given what you're arguing for. Colonizers weren't immigrants, they were colonizers. Blaming the original inhabitants' border control (in a world where borders were very different than the ones we have today) for colonialism, and conflating modern-day migration with colonization, is disgusting.