4 ms·

> How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It works

> How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It works fine in Europe. The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. > Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? No, I'm not presuming, I'm saying that's what is in everyone's interests to advocate for. > And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade The point is to help people, which is not free. Anyway, you should think about what makes such degradation possible in the first place. If things would be more equal otherwise, then clearly borders are exploitative in the first place. In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. It'd be a free market of location.

anamax 4y ago
> The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. Are immigrants fungible? If not, then why is it wrong to discriminate? > In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. Which is down for some people. "If everyone can't have it, then no one can" is pretty much a guarantee of slower progress. (You can't start with VWs for everyone.)
mistermann 4y ago
>> How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? > The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It is true that immigration has some positive benefits in many cases, but this does not necessarily (which was in the question) demonstrate that it is net beneficial. > It works fine in Europe. Can you put "fine" in quantitative terms? How did you measure this? How did you measure it against the counterfactual? > The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. It's fine to hold an opinion or belief that "that's what's really in everyone's interest", but there is an important difference between belief and knowledge.

anamax 4y ago

> The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. Are immigrants fungible? If not, then why is it wrong to discriminate? > In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. Which is down for some people. "If everyone can't have it, then no one can" is pretty much a guarantee of slower progress. (You can't start with VWs for everyone.)

mistermann 4y ago

>> How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? > The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It is true that immigration has some positive benefits in many cases, but this does not necessarily (which was in the question) demonstrate that it is net beneficial. > It works fine in Europe. Can you put "fine" in quantitative terms? How did you measure this? How did you measure it against the counterfactual? > The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. It's fine to hold an opinion or belief that "that's what's really in everyone's interest", but there is an important difference between belief and knowledge.