5 ms·

After reading Open Borders by Bryan Cahlan, I’m convinced that if there is a burden on the host country it’s temporary. Long term, I think the host country has

After reading Open Borders by Bryan Cahlan, I’m convinced that if there is a burden on the host country it’s temporary. Long term, I think the host country has much more to gain than to lose.

eggsnbacon1 6y ago
This has and will be debated forever. Given the choice though, I think its much clearer that letting in wealthy educated people is a net benefit.
- pm90 6y ago
  Your belief does not make it a reality. Studies have shown that all kinds of immigration greatly benefits host countries, and especially aging Western ones with declining populations.
  - iguy 6y ago
    This really isn't a one-dimensional question with an easy "studies have shown" answer. For a start, it would require a definition for what "benefits host countries" means -- benefits tax receipts? Proportion willing to volunteer for the army? Benefits eployers of low/high-wage labor? Number of companies founded? Strength of the literary tradition? That said, the most obvious parallel here is the indians expelled from Uganda [1], who were essentially the merchant class of that country. And I believe have done very well in England. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand
  - kyboren 6y ago
    I don't think that's exactly what eggsnbacon1 was saying. It may be true that all kinds of immigration greatly benefit host countries in the long term, but this is more debatable than that allowing wealthy, liberal, educated immigrants is a net benefit to host countries. We can argue about the long-term benefits of open borders. I don't believe eggsnbacon1 was stating a position there--more like pointing out that there are some short-term costs that generate popular pushback. But ushering in the cream of the crop is obviously beneficial; it's a no-brainer.
  - poutrathor 6y ago
    It's country dependant (and study dependant) : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport-parlementaire-souligne-l-effet-neutre-de-l-immigration-sur-l-economie_6026976_3224.html https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport... Most studies does not account for what people dislike in immigration : fracturing social contract and communities shattering. Frictions in the salad bowl are poorly translated to economic figures but folks live it everyday. So look carefully at what each study says and its perimeter. One should curb down its sureness of that matter.
tasogare 6y ago
It’s the reverse, the burden is definitive and ever growing. A large group of immigrants allow them to keep themselves in a cultural bubble, build a parallel economy (and society, actually), occupy some part of cities and setup political parties. Source: I’m French, and I quit my country in part for this reason.
- ECA_stax 6y ago
  J'ai quitte mon pays... J'ai quitte ma maison.... ma ville... ma triste ville
- blocked_again 6y ago
  So you emigrated to another country because people were immigrating to your country and immigration is bad? Is this sarcasm?
  - champagneben 6y ago
    Seems to me that they immigrated to another country because of a specific type of cultural phenomenon that was happening in their country of origin resulting from immigration. Maybe the same type of phenomenon is not happening in their country of choice? Doesn't seem sarcastic at all.
    - blocked_again 6y ago
      Sure. The thread is about how immigration is beneficial to countries in long term. It was the OP who came up with the example of France to say that is not true. > It’s the reverse, the burden is definitive and ever growing. So there are two possibilities * The French example is one of the very few exceptions -> This means the point OP is trying to make is kind of useless. Exceptions are present in almost all the theories. * French example is what will happen in all most all the countries -> In that case OP's point becomes just ironic.
growlist 6y ago
So then by this logic, we should be attempting to have every person on earth living in the UK, since all migration is positive, right? Or is there an upper limit to the desirable population of the UK before life becomes intolerable?
- pgcj_poster 6y ago
  The UK is physically large enough that everyone on Earth actually could live there with a reasonable amount of space to themselves. The issue would be feeding everyone, since even now the UK needs to import its food, and it's not clear who would grow it if literally everyone lived in Britain. But because of how markets work, as more people moved to the UK, prices would go up and people would have more incentive to stay in their own country where they could grow food for export. Also, if it's population you're concerned about, shouldn't you also worry about people having babies?
  - growlist 6y ago
    > The UK is physically large enough that everyone on Earth actually could live there with a reasonable amount of space to themselves. Clearly we have different ideas about reasonableness. > if it's population you're concerned about, shouldn't you also worry about people having babies? I do, especially in those parts of the world in which fertility is particularly high yet ability to actually look after those children is particularly low
    - pgcj_poster 6y ago
      If you divide the world population by the UK's area, you get 80,700 people/mile², which is slightly less than the population density of Mumbai, and only 13% higher than Manhattan. You might consider that "unreasonable," but it's not unlivable, or anything.
- iforgotaboutit 6y ago
  An "open border" does not mean "force everyone to live in one country". It means potentially emigrants have the choice to move. Given that, the upper limit is determined by the number of willing individuals - that they've evaluated that life is better in the target country.
brabel 6y ago
The caveat is that this only works for economies that are growing, have a small natural population growth and hence actually need more people quite desperately. Trying to apply this same logic to a country that's stagnant economically or that already has a fast growing population would be silly.

After reading Open Borders by Bryan Cahlan, I’m convinced that if there is a burden on the host country it’s temporary. Long term, I think the host country has much more to gain than to lose.

eggsnbacon1 6y ago

This has and will be debated forever. Given the choice though, I think its much clearer that letting in wealthy educated people is a net benefit.

pm90 6y ago
Your belief does not make it a reality. Studies have shown that all kinds of immigration greatly benefits host countries, and especially aging Western ones with declining populations.
- iguy 6y ago
  This really isn't a one-dimensional question with an easy "studies have shown" answer. For a start, it would require a definition for what "benefits host countries" means -- benefits tax receipts? Proportion willing to volunteer for the army? Benefits eployers of low/high-wage labor? Number of companies founded? Strength of the literary tradition? That said, the most obvious parallel here is the indians expelled from Uganda [1], who were essentially the merchant class of that country. And I believe have done very well in England. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand
- kyboren 6y ago
  I don't think that's exactly what eggsnbacon1 was saying. It may be true that all kinds of immigration greatly benefit host countries in the long term, but this is more debatable than that allowing wealthy, liberal, educated immigrants is a net benefit to host countries. We can argue about the long-term benefits of open borders. I don't believe eggsnbacon1 was stating a position there--more like pointing out that there are some short-term costs that generate popular pushback. But ushering in the cream of the crop is obviously beneficial; it's a no-brainer.
- poutrathor 6y ago
  It's country dependant (and study dependant) : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport-parlementaire-souligne-l-effet-neutre-de-l-immigration-sur-l-economie_6026976_3224.html https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport... Most studies does not account for what people dislike in immigration : fracturing social contract and communities shattering. Frictions in the salad bowl are poorly translated to economic figures but folks live it everyday. So look carefully at what each study says and its perimeter. One should curb down its sureness of that matter.

tasogare 6y ago

It’s the reverse, the burden is definitive and ever growing. A large group of immigrants allow them to keep themselves in a cultural bubble, build a parallel economy (and society, actually), occupy some part of cities and setup political parties. Source: I’m French, and I quit my country in part for this reason.

ECA_stax 6y ago
J'ai quitte mon pays... J'ai quitte ma maison.... ma ville... ma triste ville
blocked_again 6y ago
So you emigrated to another country because people were immigrating to your country and immigration is bad? Is this sarcasm?
- champagneben 6y ago
  Seems to me that they immigrated to another country because of a specific type of cultural phenomenon that was happening in their country of origin resulting from immigration. Maybe the same type of phenomenon is not happening in their country of choice? Doesn't seem sarcastic at all.
  - blocked_again 6y ago
    Sure. The thread is about how immigration is beneficial to countries in long term. It was the OP who came up with the example of France to say that is not true. > It’s the reverse, the burden is definitive and ever growing. So there are two possibilities * The French example is one of the very few exceptions -> This means the point OP is trying to make is kind of useless. Exceptions are present in almost all the theories. * French example is what will happen in all most all the countries -> In that case OP's point becomes just ironic.

growlist 6y ago

So then by this logic, we should be attempting to have every person on earth living in the UK, since all migration is positive, right? Or is there an upper limit to the desirable population of the UK before life becomes intolerable?

pgcj_poster 6y ago
The UK is physically large enough that everyone on Earth actually could live there with a reasonable amount of space to themselves. The issue would be feeding everyone, since even now the UK needs to import its food, and it's not clear who would grow it if literally everyone lived in Britain. But because of how markets work, as more people moved to the UK, prices would go up and people would have more incentive to stay in their own country where they could grow food for export. Also, if it's population you're concerned about, shouldn't you also worry about people having babies?
- growlist 6y ago
  > The UK is physically large enough that everyone on Earth actually could live there with a reasonable amount of space to themselves. Clearly we have different ideas about reasonableness. > if it's population you're concerned about, shouldn't you also worry about people having babies? I do, especially in those parts of the world in which fertility is particularly high yet ability to actually look after those children is particularly low
  - pgcj_poster 6y ago
    If you divide the world population by the UK's area, you get 80,700 people/mile², which is slightly less than the population density of Mumbai, and only 13% higher than Manhattan. You might consider that "unreasonable," but it's not unlivable, or anything.
iforgotaboutit 6y ago
An "open border" does not mean "force everyone to live in one country". It means potentially emigrants have the choice to move. Given that, the upper limit is determined by the number of willing individuals - that they've evaluated that life is better in the target country.

brabel 6y ago

The caveat is that this only works for economies that are growing, have a small natural population growth and hence actually need more people quite desperately. Trying to apply this same logic to a country that's stagnant economically or that already has a fast growing population would be silly.