3 ms·

> Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. That's fair. I didn't necessarily r

> Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. That's fair. I didn't necessarily read it that way, but I think we're more or less on the same page. > I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. I'm not sure that we will see a practical set of circumstances where people would actually be OK with open borders. People have always had some reflex against migration (for cultural reasons, as well as perhaps an instinct fear of disease) and mass migration has historically almost always led to violence. On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons".

shkkmo 7y ago
> On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons". This one of the practical reasons I alluded to and is part of my reasons for opposing certain types of welfare systems (and thus something I wish more attention was paid to in the creation of policy proposals.) Many services (e.g. education, infrastructure, policing and more) pay off so well in the long term that paying these costs for immigrants is in our own interest as they increase the long term value of those immigrants. (I think the US would be greatly served by doing something like what Germany does, offering free higher education to foreigners who qualify to attend their public universities.) If other public services are actually being abused they can be limited to citizens of the US (and of countries with which the US has reciprocity agreements with.) Immigration fears make a strong argument in favor of a citizenship dividend. I think subsidizing your workers and making them more competive vs. immigrants is far better for our country than the dehumanizing policing (not just at the borders) required to effectively enforce immigration laws. Personally, I view this as a negative since I think immigration has been unabashedly good in the long term for our country throughout it's history. Immigration controls may offer some sort term benefits, but it seems hypocritical to ask for those benefits for ourselves (at the cost of future generations) while reaping the advantages of historical immigration.

shkkmo 7y ago

> On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons". This one of the practical reasons I alluded to and is part of my reasons for opposing certain types of welfare systems (and thus something I wish more attention was paid to in the creation of policy proposals.) Many services (e.g. education, infrastructure, policing and more) pay off so well in the long term that paying these costs for immigrants is in our own interest as they increase the long term value of those immigrants. (I think the US would be greatly served by doing something like what Germany does, offering free higher education to foreigners who qualify to attend their public universities.) If other public services are actually being abused they can be limited to citizens of the US (and of countries with which the US has reciprocity agreements with.) Immigration fears make a strong argument in favor of a citizenship dividend. I think subsidizing your workers and making them more competive vs. immigrants is far better for our country than the dehumanizing policing (not just at the borders) required to effectively enforce immigration laws. Personally, I view this as a negative since I think immigration has been unabashedly good in the long term for our country throughout it's history. Immigration controls may offer some sort term benefits, but it seems hypocritical to ask for those benefits for ourselves (at the cost of future generations) while reaping the advantages of historical immigration.